Why does the right continually confuse 'executing the law' with 'OMG IMPEACH HIM FOR IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION'??

You do know that even brown people are obligated to enact and enforce the laws as written by Congress, right? And that Congress deliberately writes those laws with a lot of leeway for Presidential flexibility in said enactment and enforcement? That interpretation is part of the intent?

And this is the real fear. The elimination of what amounts to legalized gambling, with peoples' lives and a lot of jobs in the center. Single payer is the eventual end game, and the insurance companies realize this, and they are going to do their level best to stop it.

We'll never get tired of saying it, but there are more than a few things wrong with Obamacare. It so amazes me that the right insists on making up so many more things that aren't. It's like they're professional liars or something.

The math is rather simple. If insurers have to cover more types of medications/services, as well as millions of new customers who already have chronic illnesses for whom you can't increase rates, you have to raise rates if you want to remain profitable.

Look, this is what happens when government gets involved. They write a bill that causes health care rates to go up. Unnecessarily. Then they ask insurance companies to keep rates artificially low; below market value for political purposes (2014 mid-terms). Then they promise to reimburse insurers for their losses.

What this does is

A) make insurers completely dependent and at the mercy of government to operateB) reduce the ability of insurers to predict and respond to market forces, as those forces have been perversed by government intrusion. year-over-year enrollment percentages and prices are no longer reliable and representative. Basically, there is no transparency in the marketplace. the whole market can change on a whim by a bureaucrat.C) reduce the incentives for insurers to cut costs and operate at maximum efficiency: "the government is just gonna bail us out at the end of the year anyways!" See the finance industry for how that turns out.D) reduce the incentives for insurers to offer optimal products consumers want at the best possible prices. Government determines the services and prices now, based on political motives.E) so insurers have no incentive to innovate, offer new and better products and servicesF) so the industry stagnatesG) and consumers end up suffering the most from thisH) and insurers know they will be bailed out by government, so they will take on much more risk than they were willing to assume, leading to spiraling debt which will then have to be bailed out by taxpayersI) costing Americans more in the end than if Obamacare had never existed.

ArkAngel:The math is rather simple. If insurers have to cover more types of medications/services, as well as millions of new customers who already have chronic illnesses for whom you can't increase rates, you have to raise rates if you want to remain profitable.

Just a little while ago rates were supposed to go through the roof. Now they're being paid to be kept low. I wonder if different things will happen to different rates because this country is farking huge and there are many insurance companies offering policies in many different markets?

If I'm an insurer putting my Obamacare plan on the government marketplace website, right next to all the other insurers and their Obamacare plans on the website, I'm going to make damn sure that my plan is the least expensive plan on the website, in the hopes that I can attract people to my insurance company by being the lowest priced plan on the website, even if I lose some money over the year, in the hopes that I keep those new customers when it comes time to renew their insurance policies. Not only that, once I had those new customers, I would work relentlessly with medical care providers to cut our costs so that I can continue to offer the lowest priced Obamacare plans in the future. This is called competition, and it is how we expect prices in a capitalistic system to be kept low.

whistleridge:Why does the right continually confuse 'executing the law' with 'OMG IMPEACH HIM FOR IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION'??

You do know that even brown people are obligated to enact and enforce the laws as written by Congress, right? And that Congress deliberately writes those laws with a lot of leeway for Presidential flexibility in said enactment and enforcement? That interpretation is part of the intent?

I'm getting a law suit ready to sue the police departments around here for not enforcing the speed limit against me when I've driven past officers at 5+ over.

Soup4Bonnie:Just a little while ago rates were supposed to go through the roof. Now they're being paid to be kept low. I wonder if different things will happen to different rates because this country is farking huge and there are many insurance companies offering policies in many different markets?

Nah.

Yah.

Premium hikes will likely be modest in much of the country. But probably not everywhere. - Larry Levitt, Kaiser Family Foundation

ArkAngel:The math is rather simple. If insurers have to cover more types of medications/services, as well as millions of new customers who already have chronic illnesses for whom you can't increase rates, you have to raise rates if you want to remain profitable.

Or I dunno, maybe sign up millions of healthy customers who wern't in the system before?

SlothB77:Look, this is what happens when government gets involved. They write a bill that causes health care rates to go up. Unnecessarily. Then they ask insurance companies to keep rates artificially low; below market value for political purposes (2014 mid-terms). Then they promise to reimburse insurers for their losses.

What this does is

A) make insurers completely dependent and at the mercy of government to operateB) reduce the ability of insurers to predict and respond to market forces, as those forces have been perversed by government intrusion. year-over-year enrollment percentages and prices are no longer reliable and representative. Basically, there is no transparency in the marketplace. the whole market can change on a whim by a bureaucrat.C) reduce the incentives for insurers to cut costs and operate at maximum efficiency: "the government is just gonna bail us out at the end of the year anyways!" See the finance industry for how that turns out.D) reduce the incentives for insurers to offer optimal products consumers want at the best possible prices. Government determines the services and prices now, based on political motives.E) so insurers have no incentive to innovate, offer new and better products and servicesF) so the industry stagnatesG) and consumers end up suffering the most from thisH) and insurers know they will be bailed out by government, so they will take on much more risk than they were willing to assume, leading to spiraling debt which will then have to be bailed out by taxpayersI) costing Americans more in the end than if Obamacare had never existed.

RyogaM:If I'm an insurer putting my Obamacare plan on the government marketplace website, right next to all the other insurers and their Obamacare plans on the website, I'm going to make damn sure that my plan is the least expensive plan on the website, in the hopes that I can attract people to my insurance company by being the lowest priced plan on the website, even if I lose some money over the year, in the hopes that I keep those new customers when it comes time to renew their insurance policies. Not only that, once I had those new customers, I would work relentlessly with medical care providers to cut our costs so that I can continue to offer the lowest priced Obamacare plans in the future. This is called competition, and it is how we expect prices in a capitalistic system to be kept low.

Nuh uh. Because government. Now, if this exact same process were run entirely by private businesses in space where THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT, magic pixie dust would make health insurance inexpensive and it would cover everything, including happy endings.

SlothB77:Look, this is what happens when government gets involved. They write a bill that causes health care rates to go up. Unnecessarily. Then they ask insurance companies to keep rates artificially low; below market value for political purposes (2014 mid-terms). Then they promise to reimburse insurers for their losses.

What this does is

A) make insurers completely dependent and at the mercy of government to operateB) reduce the ability of insurers to predict and respond to market forces, as those forces have been perversed by government intrusion. year-over-year enrollment percentages and prices are no longer reliable and representative. Basically, there is no transparency in the marketplace. the whole market can change on a whim by a bureaucrat.C) reduce the incentives for insurers to cut costs and operate at maximum efficiency: "the government is just gonna bail us out at the end of the year anyways!" See the finance industry for how that turns out.D) reduce the incentives for insurers to offer optimal products consumers want at the best possible prices. Government determines the services and prices now, based on political motives.E) so insurers have no incentive to innovate, offer new and better products and servicesF) so the industry stagnatesG) and consumers end up suffering the most from thisH) and insurers know they will be bailed out by government, so they will take on much more risk than they were willing to assume, leading to spiraling debt which will then have to be bailed out by taxpayersI) costing Americans more in the end than if Obamacare had never existed.

ArkAngel:The math is rather simple. If insurers have to cover more types of medications/services, as well as millions of new customers who already have chronic illnesses for whom you can't increase rates, you have to raise rates if you want to remain profitable.

You mean that all the goodies handed out to Obama's Free Sh*t Army aren't actually free? Who knew?

The people who eagerly take from other people are disgusting, reprehensible human beings. The people who applaud and advocate for even more of this kind of behavior are a cancer in the asshole of humanity, and the world would be better off if they all died.

Phinn:ArkAngel: The math is rather simple. If insurers have to cover more types of medications/services, as well as millions of new customers who already have chronic illnesses for whom you can't increase rates, you have to raise rates if you want to remain profitable.

You mean that all the goodies handed out to Obama's Free Sh*t Army aren't actually free? Who knew?

The people who eagerly take from other people are disgusting, reprehensible human beings. The people who applaud and advocate for even more of this kind of behavior are a cancer in the asshole of humanity, and the world would be better off if they all died.

Serious Black:Phinn: ArkAngel: The math is rather simple. If insurers have to cover more types of medications/services, as well as millions of new customers who already have chronic illnesses for whom you can't increase rates, you have to raise rates if you want to remain profitable.

You mean that all the goodies handed out to Obama's Free Sh*t Army aren't actually free? Who knew?

The people who eagerly take from other people are disgusting, reprehensible human beings. The people who applaud and advocate for even more of this kind of behavior are a cancer in the asshole of humanity, and the world would be better off if they all died.

Everybody who has a job is a disgusting, reprehensible human being?

No, Einstein, employment is a mutually voluntary trade, not an example of taking.

And this is the real fear. The elimination of what amounts to legalized gambling, with peoples' lives and a lot of jobs in the center. Single payer is the eventual end game, and the insurance companies realize this, and they are going to do their level best to stop it.

The people who eagerly take from other people are disgusting, reprehensible human beings. The people who applaud and advocate for even more of this kind of behavior are a cancer in the asshole of humanity, and the world would be better off if they all died.

Phinn:ArkAngel: The math is rather simple. If insurers have to cover more types of medications/services, as well as millions of new customers who already have chronic illnesses for whom you can't increase rates, you have to raise rates if you want to remain profitable.

You mean that all the goodies handed out to Obama's Free Sh*t Army aren't actually free? Who knew?

The people who eagerly take from other people are disgusting, reprehensible human beings. The people who applaud and advocate for even more of this kind of behavior are a cancer in the asshole of humanity, and the world would be better off if they all died.

Well, if anyone knows the inner workings of the asshole of humanity, it would be you.

The people who eagerly take from other people are disgusting, reprehensible human beings. The people who applaud and advocate for even more of this kind of behavior are a cancer in the asshole of humanity, and the world would be better off if they all died.

[www.habitatforhorses.org image 504x320]Disgusting, reprehensible

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 640x480]Cancer in the asshole of humanity.

Yes, people who demand, as a matter of right, that others are obligated to pay for your goods and services, are scum.

The goods and services in question can be anything that constitutes property, whether it's grazing rights or medical insurance or birth control pills.

In the case of Bundy, I'm afraid I don't know enough about the case to comment. I know he had some sort of claim that it was his land, but have no idea if that claim was valid. That sort of dispute is what courts are for -- to settle disputed titles to land and other rights of land use.

That's not the same level of asshole-cancer behavior as, for example, constructing an elaborate ideology that employees in general are entitled, somehow, to force their employers to pay for their insurance in general or their birth control in particular.

Bundy may have been wrong. I don't know. But even if he is, that's a unique dispute over a particular piece of land, and not a particularly interesting topic as a broad legal or ethical concern.

In contrast, the entire leftist ideology is an intellectual cancer. The latest jargon emanating from its chief propagandists seems to revolve around calling recreational sex-tools "medical care." Even worse, these asshole-cancers are now calling not-paying-for-other-people's-stuff a form of "denying access."

As though the grocery store is denying me access to food when they expect me to pay for it.

As though the Porsche dealer is denying me access to their well-engineered sports cars when they withhold the car keys from me.

You, for example, are denying me access to your bank account, right now.

I expect otherwise intelligent people to know better, so can only conclude that the people who promote this garbage are hopelessly corrupt.